Plastic and reconstructive uterus operations by minimally invasive surgery? A review on myomectomy

iprs000009 10.3205/iprs000009 urn:nbn:de:0183-iprs0000096 Review Article Plastic and reconstructive uterus operations by minimally invasive surgery? A review on myomectomy Minimal invasive Chirurgie bei plastischen und rekonstruktiven Uterusoperationen: die Myomentfernung Hirschelmann Hirschelmann Anja A

Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Klinik für Frauenheilkunde, Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologische Onkologie, Oldenburg, Germany

author De Wilde De Wilde Rudy Leon RL

Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Klinik für Frauenheilkunde, Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologische Onkologie, Georgstraße 12, 26121 Oldenburg, GermanyPius-Hospital Oldenburg, Klinik für Frauenheilkunde, Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologische Onkologie, Oldenburg, Germany

Rudy-Leon.DeWilde@pius-hospital.de author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 minimally invasive surgery myomectomy plastic and reconstructive surgery infertility uterine rupture 2012010920160310 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. You are free: to Share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen. Er darf vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden. 2193-8091 1 GMS Interdisciplinary Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery DGPW GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW 09 20160309ISSN added Hintergrund: Plastische und rekonstruktive Uterusoperationen werden aufgrund von angeborenen genitalen Fehlbildungen oder gutartigen Uteruserkrankungen durchgeführt. Bei angeborenen genitalen Fehlbildungen handelt es sich um relativ seltene Erkrankungen mit unterschiedlichsten Behandlungsansätzen. Zur Beantwortung der Frage, ob es sinnvoll ist plastische Uterusoperationen minimalinvasiv durchzuführen, wird daher die häufigste gutartige Uteruserkrankung, welche eine Rekonstruktion des Uterus erfordert, nämlich die Myomentfernung, besprochen. Methodik: Es wurde eine Literaturrecherche in PubMed und der Cochrane Library durchgeführt.Ergebnisse: Die laparoskopische Myomentfernung ist, verglichen mit der Myomentfernung per Laparotomie und Minilaparotomie, mit einem besseren kurzfristigen Patientenoutcome verbunden. Zudem kann die Entstehung von Adhäsionen durch den Einsatz der Laparoskopie vermindert werden. Die Schwangerschaftsrate nach laparoskopischer Myomentfernung ist bei symptomatischen Patientinnen höher als nach Myomentfernung per Laparotomie. Obwohl Uterusrupturen nach laparoskopischer Myomentfernung in der Literatur beschrieben sind, scheint dies dennoch ein seltenes Ereignis zu sein. Bezüglich des Auftretens von Rezidiven gibt es Hinweise, dass es keinen Unterschied nach Laparoskopie und Laparotomie gibt. Schlussfolgerung: Die laparoskopische Myomentfernung hat gegenüber der Myomentfernung per Laparotomie (herkömmliche Laparotomie und Minilaparotomie) verschiedene Vorteile und sollte die Standardoperation darstellen. Trotz der Vorteile der Laparoskopie ist die Myomentfernung per Laparotomie immer noch ein häufig durchgeführter Eingriff. Ein Mangel an Training in technisch anspruchsvollen laparoskopischen Operationen erschwert den weitverbreiteten Einsatz der laparoskopischen Myomentfernung. Aufgrund der Vorteile der Laparoskopie, sollte man sich jedoch um die Implementierung dieser Operation in die tägliche Praxis bemühen. Um die bestmögliche Versorgung zu gewährleisten, sollten Ärzte ihren Patienten die Möglichkeit bieten Myome laparoskopisch entfernen zu lassen. Background: Plastic and reconstructive uterus operations are performed in congenital uterine anomalies or benign uterine conditions. Congenital uterine anomalies are relatively rare diseases with various approaches for surgical treatment. Therefore, to address the question of the usefulness of a minimally invasive approach in plastic uterus operations, the most common uterine condition which requires reconstructive surgery, namely myomectomy, is discussed. Method: Searches were conducted in PubMed and The Cochrane Library to identify relevant literature.Findings: Compared with myomectomy by laparotomy and minilaparotom</PlainText></TextGroup>y, laparoscopic myomectomy is associated with improved short-term outcomes. Laparoscopy is further associated with less adhesion formation. Pregnancy rates after myomectomy in symptomatic patients might be higher after laparoscopy than after laparotomy. Although uterine ruptures following laparoscopic myomectomy are described in the lite<TextGroup><PlainText>ratu</PlainText></TextGroup>re, it seems to be a rare event. Concerning the recurrence, there is evidence that rates are similar after laparoscopy and laparo<TextGroup><PlainText>tom</PlainText></TextGroup>y. </Pgraph><Pgraph><Mark1>Conclusion:</Mark1> Myomectomy by laparoscopy has several advantages over abdominal myomectomy (by conventional laparotomy and minilaparo<TextGroup><PlainText>tom</PlainText></TextGroup>y) and should be the standard procedure. Despite the advantages of laparoscopy, abdominal myomectomy is still a frequently performed procedure. Lack of training in advanced laparoscopic procedures hampers the wide-spread use of laparoscopic myomectomy. Due to the advantages of laparoscopic surgery, efforts should be made to implement this procedure into daily practice. To provide the best care, physicians should offer patients the opportunity of a laparoscopic treatment of myomas.</Pgraph></Abstract> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Background"> <MainHeadline>Background</MainHeadline><Pgraph>Reconstructive surgery of the uterus is required in congenital uterine anomalies or benign uterine conditions, like myomas, adenomyosis or uterine wall abnormalities, in women wishing to preserve their uterus for reproductive or personal reasons <TextLink reference="1"></TextLink>. The restoration of the regular uterine anatomy is important to diminish the negative impact on fertility and pregnancy outcomes that some of these disorders may have <TextLink reference="2"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="3"></TextLink>. </Pgraph><Pgraph>Congenital uterine anomalies are a group of various uterine malformations caused by either unilateral development or incomplete midline fusion due to disturbances in early development of the Müllerian system <TextLink reference="4"></TextLink>. The incidence of congenital uterine anomalies ranges from 0.1–2% among all women up to 4% among infertility patients <TextLink reference="4"></TextLink>. Treatment of these diseases varies from hysteroscopic resection to complex reconstructive procedures depending on the type of anomaly <TextLink reference="2"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="5"></TextLink>. </Pgraph><Pgraph>However, the most common benign tumor of the uterus in women of reproductive age is the uterine leiomyoma (uterine fibroid, fibroid, myoma) <TextLink reference="6"></TextLink> (Figure 1 <ImgLink imgNo="1" imgType="figure"/>). In a large ultrasonographic study, the cumulative incidence of uterine myomas by age 50 was over 80% for black women and nearly 70% for white women <TextLink reference="7"></TextLink>. Although not all women with myomas develop symptoms, myomas have a great clinical impact <TextLink reference="8"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="9"></TextLink>. The majority of hystere<TextGroup><PlainText>ctomi</PlainText></TextGroup>es are performed due to symptomatic uterine myomas <TextLink reference="10"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="11"></TextLink>. Symptoms include abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pressure and pain, and reproductive dysfunction <TextLink reference="8"></TextLink>. If future pregnancy is desired or if women want to preserve their uterus for personal reasons, an appropriate alternative to hysterectomy has to be found for their treatment.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Whereas abdominal myomectomy is performed routinely for many decades, in the recent years, various minimally invasive alternatives to laparotomy have been developed <TextLink reference="12"></TextLink>. At present, a vast number of minimally invasive approaches for the treatment of myomas exist including abdominal myomectomy (by minilaparotomy <TextLink reference="13"></TextLink> or u<TextGroup><PlainText>ltram</PlainText></TextGroup>inilaparotomy <TextLink reference="14"></TextLink>), vaginal myomectomy <TextLink reference="15"></TextLink>, laparoscopic myomectomy (also gasless laparoscopy <TextLink reference="16"></TextLink>, single access laparoscopy <TextLink reference="17"></TextLink> or robotic assisted laparoscopy <TextLink reference="18"></TextLink>), uterine artery embolization (UAE) <TextLink reference="19"></TextLink>, uterine artery occlusion <TextLink reference="20"></TextLink>, myolysis <TextLink reference="21"></TextLink>, magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound <TextLink reference="22"></TextLink> and medical treatment <TextLink reference="23"></TextLink>. Only a few of the treatment options are investigated in randomised, controlled trials and some of them still need to be investigated for safety and effic<TextGroup><PlainText>ac</PlainText></TextGroup>y. To answer the question about the usefulness of a minimally invasive approach for reconstructive uterine surgery, this article focus on myomectomy as the most common plastic and reconstructive uterine procedure. Myomectomy by laparoscopy is compared to myomectomy by laparotomy, minilaparotomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. Moreover, frequent concerns associated with laparoscopic myomectomy are discussed.</Pgraph></TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Methods"> <MainHeadline>Methods</MainHeadline><Pgraph>The PubMed database was searched using the search terms “myomectomy” alone and in combination with “adhesions”, “infertility OR fertility outcome”, “uterus rupture”, “recurrence”, “costs” and “surveys” with the limitation on articles published in English and German. Additionally, the PubMed database was searched using the search term “laparoscopy and learning curve”. The Cochrane Library was also searched for the search term “myomectomy”. Articles were included in the review if the title indicated any relevance to the topic. Statements in the articles were scrutinised by searching the corresponding articles listed in the references sections. The reference lists were also searched for relevant literature.</Pgraph></TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Findings"> <MainHeadline>Findings</MainHeadline><SubHeadline>Myomectomy </SubHeadline><Pgraph>Depending on the preference of the surgeon, different modifications of the technique are possible, concerning trocar placement, instruments used, methods to reduce bleeding or suture material used. The following section provides a brief overview of the basic steps of myomectomy <TextLink reference="24"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="25"></TextLink>. </Pgraph><Pgraph>During the procedure, the use of a uterus manipulator facilitates myomectomy and suturing as it enables the positioning of the uterus depending on the location of the myoma (Figure 2 <ImgLink imgNo="2" imgType="figure"/>). At the beginning of the procedure, diluted vasopressin is injected between the myoma capsule and the normal muscle layer which is an effective technique to reduce haemorrhage <TextLink reference="26"></TextLink>. Although rare, some severe complications, associated with the use of vasopressin, were reported including pulmonary oedema, severe hypotension and bradycardia with eventual cardiac arrest <TextLink reference="27"></TextLink>. Therefore, the possible occurrence of these complications should be kept in mind when diluted vasopressin is used. After injection, the myometrium overlying the myoma become pale and the myometrium can be incised in horizontal or vertical direction. A horizontal incision may facilitate the subsequent suturing of the myometrial defect <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>. To further reduce the risk of bleeding, the incision is made with a monopolar instrument (hook or scissor) or a harmonic scalpel <TextLink reference="6"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>. Once the myoma pseudocapsule is reached, the myoma can be grasped with a forceps or a myoma screw, enabling traction and countertraction on the myoma which is necessary for the enucleation (Figure 3 <ImgLink imgNo="3" imgType="figure"/>). If the myoma is enucleated along the avascular cleavage plane, the enucleation should be easily possible. Attachments to the myometrium can be lysed with a bipolar forceps or a monopolar scissor <TextLink reference="24"></TextLink>. The enucleated myoma is temporary placed in the cul-de-sac and is removed at the end of the procedure by mechanical or electric morcellation. Suturing of the myometrial defect is of great importance for the strength of the uterine scar. Depending on the depth of the defect, a single or multilayer closure is necessary to minimise the risk of haematoma, post-operat<TextGroup><PlainText>iv</PlainText></TextGroup>e bleeding or uterine rupture in subsequent pregnancies (Figure 4 <ImgLink imgNo="4" imgType="figure"/>) <TextLink reference="27"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>. </Pgraph><SubHeadline>Laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy by conventional laparotomy</SubHeadline><Pgraph>First reports of abdominal myomectomy as an alternative to hysterectomy are published over 100 years ago <TextLink reference="29"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="30"></TextLink>. Back then, reasons for uterus preservation already included the women’s desire for future childbearing as well as the women’s wish for organ preservation in order to avoid emotional distress caused by the experience of an organ loss <TextLink reference="31"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="32"></TextLink>. Despite these early advocacies for myomectomy, it took decades before abdominal myomectomy was generally accepted as a treatment option for uterine fibroids <TextLink reference="33"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="34"></TextLink>. Additionally, in 1979, Semm introduced the laparoscopic myomectomy as a new promising surgical approach for the treatment of uterine myomas <TextLink reference="35"></TextLink>. Since then, numerous articles were published concerning the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic myomectomy <TextLink reference="36"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="37"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="38"></TextLink>. However, only a few studies compared laparoscopic myomectomy with abdominal myomectomy whereas only some of them are prospective, randomised trials <TextLink reference="39"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="40"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="41"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="42"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="43"></TextLink>. The retrospective trials revealed that laparoscopic myomectomy is associated with lower haemoglobin drop or less blood loss, respectively, lower morbidity and a shorter hospital stay <TextLink reference="39"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="40"></TextLink>. These findings are in line with the prospective, randomised studies <TextLink reference="41"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="42"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="43"></TextLink> (Table 1 <ImgLink imgNo="1" imgType="table"/>). Moreover, Holzer et al. demonstrated in a double-blind study that laparoscopic myomectomy is associated with lower postoperative pain <TextLink reference="43"></TextLink>. In the recent years, however, publications about myomectomy by minilaparotomy as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional laparotomy are increasing. Prospective, randomised studies exist, comparing myomectomy by laparoscopy and minilaparotomy. Therefore, the next section provides a more detailed comparison of these two minimally invasive fibroid treatments.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy by minilaparotomy</SubHeadline><Pgraph>Minilaparotomy is a modification of laparotomy where the skin incision does not exceed 5–6 centimetres <TextLink reference="13"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="44"></TextLink>. Although minilaparotomy was already described in the 1990s <TextLink reference="45"></TextLink>, only in the last decade, an increasing number of articles have been published concerning minilaparotomy as a minimally invasive treatment option for myomectomy <TextLink reference="13"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="46"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="47"></TextLink>. Authors, who encourage myomectomy by minilaparotomy, state that this procedure has several advantages over laparoscopic myomectomy including the ability to palpate the uterus, the possibility to operate large myomas, no need for extra equipment and no need for advanced technical skills, especially in suturing the uterine incision <TextLink reference="13"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="48"></TextLink>. In comparison with conventional laparotomy, minilaparotomy showed indeed advantages of minimally invasive surgery like a shorter hospital stay <TextLink reference="49"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="50"></TextLink>. However, prospective, randomised trials comparing minilaparotomy and laparoscopy, confirmed that laparoscopy is associated with better short-term outcomes like a significantly lower decline in haemoglobin concentrations, lower postoperative pain, lower analgesic requirements and a shorter hospital stay <TextLink reference="44"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="51"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="52"></TextLink> (Table 2 <ImgLink imgNo="2" imgType="table"/>).</Pgraph><Pgraph>Concerning complications associated with laparoscopic and abdominal myomectomy, Alessandri et al. reported in their study one laparoconversion due to difficulties of hemostasis and one case of diffuse peritonitis caused by ileal perforation in the laparoscopic group <TextLink reference="51"></TextLink>. Interestingly, in the study of Palomba et al. six laparoconversions occurred in the minilaparotomy group. These lapa<TextGroup><PlainText>roc</PlainText></TextGroup>onversions were due to posterior isthmic and infraligamentary location of the leiomyomas and the authors mentioned that in these cases the degree of surgical difficulty was similar to that of laparoscopy. In this study, location of the main myoma rather than the size of the myoma was the main factor that influences the results. The authors stated that myomectomy of anterior, fundal and lateral myomas was simpler and faster when minilaparotomy was conducted. However, there were five (7.4%) postoperative complications in the minilaparotomy group including one case of fever >38°C, two wound infections and one case of wound dehiscence. In the laparoscopic group, two (2.9%) postoperative complications occurred including one case of fever >38°C and one case of urinary tract infection <TextLink reference="52"></TextLink>. Cicinelli et al. reported two intraoperative complications in the laparoscopic group. In one patient, moderate subcutaneous emphysema developed at pneumoperitoneum creation and in the other patient the procedure was converted to minilaparotomy due to difficulty in reconstructing the uterine wall. Postoperatively, five patients in the laparoscopy group (12.5%) and ten patients in the minilaparotomy group (25%) developed fever <TextLink reference="44"></TextLink>. Compared with myomectomy by minilaparotomy, laparoscopic myomectomy is associated with better short-term outcomes. Furthermore, laparoscopic myomectomy carries a low risk of minor and major complications.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Laparoscopic myomectomy versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy</SubHeadline><Pgraph>In the last decade, robotic surgery has been introduced in gynecology and is described as “an enhancement along the continuum of laparoscopic technocological advances” <TextLink reference="18"></TextLink>. Robotic surgery provides a 3-dimensional image, absence of tremor, superior instrument articulation, comfort for the surgeon and a faster learning curve <TextLink reference="53"></TextLink>. At present, only retrospective studies are available comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM) with laparotomy or laparoscopy. Compared with laparo<TextGroup><PlainText>tom</PlainText></TextGroup>y, RALM is associated with a decrease in blood loss, fewer complications and a shorter hospital stay <TextLink reference="54"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="55"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="56"></TextLink>. Compared with laparoscopic myomectomy, RALM seems to have similar short-term outcomes <TextLink reference="56"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="57"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="58"></TextLink>. Furthermore, Nezhat et al. stated that RALM does not offer any major advantages over laparoscopy when laparoscopy is performed by a skilled surgeon <TextLink reference="58"></TextLink>. However, removal of large, unfavourable localised myomas as well as suturing the uterine incision is challenging for many surgeons and hampers the widespread adoption of laparoscopy <TextLink reference="54"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="59"></TextLink>. Although robotic surgery can overcome these difficulties <TextLink reference="56"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="60"></TextLink>, the higher costs currently lead to an obvious drawback of this possible approach <TextLink reference="54"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="61"></TextLink>. In case of persisting higher costs, robotic surgery is unlikely to be adopted by all hospitals in the near future. At present, therefore, laparoscopy remains the preferred approach if myomectomy should be conducted by a minimally invasive approach.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Postoperative adhesions </SubHeadline><Pgraph>Adhesions are fibrin strands between two anatomical sites which are normally not attached to each other. After a previous laparotomy, adhesions were found in 93% of patients during a second procedure <TextLink reference="62"></TextLink>. Complications associated with adhesions are small bowel obstruction (SBO) <TextLink reference="63"></TextLink>, chronic pelvic pain <TextLink reference="64"></TextLink>, infertility <TextLink reference="65"></TextLink> and the risk for inadvertent bowel injuries in subsequent procedures <TextLink reference="66"></TextLink>. A recent review of 2,000 laparoscopies conducted for the treatment of acute SBO, declared that adhesions were accountable for 84.9% of the small bowel obstructions <TextLink reference="67"></TextLink>. Although adhesions are described as an important cause of chronic pelvic pain, its real impact remains controversial <TextLink reference="64"></TextLink>. One further major concern about adhesions is the unfavourable influence that they could have on future fertility. Adhesions can lead to an impaired interaction between the Fallopian tube and the ovary and it is assumed that adhesions cause 20–40% of female infertility <TextLink reference="68"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="69"></TextLink>. It is known that some gyn<TextGroup><PlainText>aeco</PlainText></TextGroup>logical procedures carry a higher risk of adhesion development than others <TextLink reference="70"></TextLink> whereas myomectomy is associated with a high risk for adhesion formation <TextLink reference="1"></TextLink>. Bearing this in mind, it is important to find ways to reduce adhesion formation after myomectomy, as this procedure is often performed to restore childbearing potential. </Pgraph><Pgraph>Comparing laparoscopy and laparotomy in their adhesiogenic potential, conflicting data exist. Whereas laparoscopy was long regarded to be less adhesiogen, it was demonstrated that the laparoscopic environment itself functions as a cofactor in adhesion formation. The pressure used to maintain the pneumoperitoneum leads to tissue hypoxia and thereby to alterations in the fibrinolytic system which is a key factor in adhesion formation. Furthermore, the use of cold and dry insufflation gas could lead to peritoneal damage through tissue desiccation, although tissue desiccation is also a problem during open surgery <TextLink reference="71"></TextLink>. Nevertheless, studies investigating adhesion formation after myomectomy by laparoscopy or laparo<TextGroup><PlainText>tom</PlainText></TextGroup>y revealed that adhesions occur less often after laparoscopy (RefProf). The published incidence of adhesions after myomectomy varies as shown by the following studies. Tinelli et al. investigated in a prospective blinded observational study the effect of an anti-adhesion agent after both laparoscopic myomectomy and abdominal myomectomy. A large number of patients (n=546) with comparable baseline characteristics and no difference in the dimension of the fibroid were assessed during a second procedure conducted for several reasons. The incidence of adhesions in the different groups was as follows: abdominal myomectomy (AM) without adhesion barrier (AB) (28.1%), laparoscopic myomectomy (LM) without AB (22.6%), AM with AB (22%) and LM with AB (15.9%) <TextLink reference="72"></TextLink>. Kubinova et al. assessed adhesions during a second-look laparoscopy for adhesiolysis after abdominal or laparoscopic myomectomy. In this study, 96.65% of patients had adhesions after laparotomy (n=28) compared with 71.43% of patients after laparoscopy (n=68). If adhesions were present, patients after abdominal myomectomy had more dense adhesions than patients after laparoscopy. Furthermore, after abdominal myomectomy 89.29% of patients had de novo adnexal adhesions which might compromise fertility. In the laparoscopic group de novo adnexal adhesions were observed in 10.6% of patients <TextLink reference="73"></TextLink>. Another study also assessed the occurrence of adhesions after laparoscopic myomectomy during a second procedure and found adhesions in only 1.6% of patients (2/121) <TextLink reference="74"></TextLink>. Although the use of laparoscopy is not able to prevent adhesion formation completely, it can be shown that the occurrence of adhesions is reduced after laparoscopy. </Pgraph><Pgraph>Several factors associated with myomectomy influence the formation of adhesions. Some studies revealed that myomas of the posterior uterine site lead to more adhesions than fundal or anterior myomas <TextLink reference="75"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="76"></TextLink>. Further influencing factors are the size and the number of removed myomas <TextLink reference="77"></TextLink>. Suturing of the uterine surface can increase the risk of adhesion formation <TextLink reference="78"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="79"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="80"></TextLink>. Furthermore, the skill of the surgeon may also have an impact on the development of adhesions <TextLink reference="77"></TextLink>. Thus, following the principles of gentle tissue handling is important to avoid extensive trauma to the peritoneum which could result in adhesions. These principles include constant tissue moistening and reduced use of electrocautery <TextLink reference="81"></TextLink>. In addition, in high risk procedures like myomectomy, the use of an anti-adhesion agent should be considered <TextLink reference="82"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Myomectomy and fertility</SubHeadline><Pgraph>The role of fibroids as a cause for infertility, is still discussed controversial. There is agreement that large submucosal fibroids are associated with increased miscarriage rate and reduced fertility and that removal of submucosal fibroids improve fertility outcomes. As submucosal myomas are mainly removed hysteroscopically, they are not included in this article <TextLink reference="83"></TextLink>. Whereas subserosal fibroids seem to have no impact on fertility, evidence on the impact of intramural fibroids on fertility is conflicting <TextLink reference="84"></TextLink>. In a recent systematic review, the implantation rate and the on-going pregnancy rate were found to be sign<TextGroup><PlainText>ific</PlainText></TextGroup>antly lower in the presence of intramural fibroids, whereas the spontaneous abortion rate was significantly higher <TextLink reference="85"></TextLink>. These data were obtained including only prospective trials. A further restriction to studies, which used a high-quality method to assess the uterine cavity, revealed that the implantation rate was still significantly impaired, but the other parameters do not longer reach significance. Moreover, advising infertile patients with intramural fibroids on surgery is controversial due to limited data on the impact of myomectomy on improving fertility <TextLink reference="85"></TextLink>. Somigliana et al. proposed to make the decision for surgery based on “(i) the age of the woman; <TextGroup><PlainText>(ii) the</PlainText></TextGroup> location, dimension and number of the fibroids; (iii) the concomitant presence of fibroid-related symptoms such as menorrhagia or hypermenorrhea and (iv) the presence of other causes of infertility and whether or not there is an indication to IVF” <TextLink reference="86"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>If surgery is recommended, the best approach has to be chosen for the patient not to further compromise fertility. Additionally, not all myomectomies conducted in women of childbearing age are performed in infertile patients. Since more and more women decide to postpone their childbearing to a later age, myomectomies are frequently performed in symptomatic patients with a desire for subsequent pregnancies <TextLink reference="87"></TextLink>. Hence, it is important to decide which the best approach is for both infertility and symptomatic patients to improve fertility outcomes. At present, only two randomised controlled trials are available comparing fertility outcomes after laparoscopic and abdominal myomectomy <TextLink reference="42"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="52"></TextLink>. Seracchioli et al. investigated 131 patients with otherwise unexplained infertility and found no significant differences in the pregnancy and abortion rate between the two groups. However, patients in the laparoscopic group showed better short term outcomes (<TextLink reference="42"></TextLink>, Table 1). A more recent study by Palomba et al. investigated the reproductive outcomes in both infertility and symptomatic patients (n=136). In case of infertility, no difference in the cumulative pregnancy rate, abortion rate and live-birth rate between laparoscopy and minilaparotomy was found. The authors stated that the study was probably underpowered to demonstrate a significant difference. Comparing only patients with myomectomy for symptomatic myomas, however, cumulative pregnancy rate, pregnancy rate per cycle and live-birth rate per cycle were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. Furthermore, the time to first pregnancy and live-birth was significantly lower after laparoscopic myomectomy <TextLink reference="52"></TextLink>. Thus, laparoscopy performed for the removal of symptomatic myomas may not only have advantages in short-term outcomes, but also in fertility outcome. In the future, large-scaled, prospective, randomised studies are needed to confirm these findings. </Pgraph><SubHeadline>Uterine rupture </SubHeadline><Pgraph>The main concern after laparoscopic myomectomy in women of childbearing age is about the strength of the myomectomy scar during subsequent pregnancies. Although it seems to be a rare event, reports of uterine rupture after abdominal myomectomy also exist in the literature <TextLink reference="88"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="89"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="90"></TextLink>. However, especially pregnancies after laparoscopic myomectomy have been a matter of concern since laparoscopic suturing is regarded as a demanding task. Several factors may contribute to the development of a weak scar with the subsequent risk for uterine rupture. The extensive use of electrocoagulation instead of sutures to achieve hemostasis can lead to tissue necrosis followed by an impaired wound healing <TextLink reference="91"></TextLink>. Further, the presence of infection or hematoma formation within the myometrium, the extent of local tissue destruction and individual healing characteristics are also factors which could influence wound healing in the myometrium <TextLink reference="92"></TextLink>. Another important contributing factor to the development of a weak scar may be an inadequate suturing of the myometrial defect. A recent review of <TextGroup><PlainText>19 case</PlainText></TextGroup> reports of uterine rupture after laparoscopic myomectomy revealed that in 7 cases the uterine defect was not repaired (3 subserosal myomas and 4 subserosal pedunculated myomas), in 3 cases it was repaired with a single suture (1 subserosal myoma and 2 intramural myomas), in 4 cases it was repaired in only 1 layer (intramural myomas) and in 1 case only the serosa was closed (subserosal myoma) <TextLink reference="92"></TextLink>. Depending on the depth of the myometrial defect, a multilayer closure may be necessary to eliminate dead space and to achieve an adequate wound closure <TextLink reference="91"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="93"></TextLink>. </Pgraph><Pgraph>Considering several studies on fertility outcome after laparoscopic myomectomy, uterine rupture seems to be also a rare event after laparoscopy <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>. A large review including 626 pregnancies after laparoscopic myomectomy found only 1 case of uterine rupture <TextLink reference="28"></TextLink>. In the above-mentioned review of case reports, time of uterine rupture range from 17 to 40 weeks of gestation <TextLink reference="92"></TextLink>. Thus, the possibility of uterine rupture should already be taken into consideration before start of labour and patients should be appropriately counseled. Additionally, the mode of delivery, vaginally or by cesarean section, must be discussed with the patients. Kumakiri et al. prospectively investigated the safety of vaginal birth after laparoscopic myomectomy by using the criteria for a vaginal birth after cesarean section. The authors concluded that in selected patients vaginal delivery could be successfully accomplished if the myomectomy wound is appropriately sutured <TextLink reference="93"></TextLink>. Therefore, pregnancies after laparoscopic myomectomy carry a low risk of uterine rupture if laparoscopy is conducted by a surgeon who has sufficient expertise. </Pgraph><SubHeadline>Myoma recurrence</SubHeadline><Pgraph>The risk for myoma recurrence after laparoscopic myomectomy compared with abdominal myomectomy is still a matter of debate. It is assumed that the inability to palpate the uterus during laparoscopy leads to a higher recurrence rate due to small intramural myomas which are left behind in the uterus. These myomas could grow and could be responsible for the recurrence of symptoms <TextLink reference="94"></TextLink>. The 5 year cumulative recurrence rate after laparo<TextGroup><PlainText>tom</PlainText></TextGroup>y varies from 5.7% to 11.1% if the recurrence rate is not assessed through systematic ultrasound investigations <TextLink reference="94"></TextLink>. If transvaginal ultrasonography is used, the recurrence rate after abdominal myomectomy is much higher and varies from 15.4% to 62% <TextLink reference="94"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="95"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="96"></TextLink>. In their study, Nezhat et al. revealed a 5 year cumulative recurrence rate after laparoscopic myomectomy of 51.4% evaluated through chart reviews, returned questionnaires and telephone interviews. The authors concluded that the recurrence rate after laparoscopy may be higher than reported after laparotomy <TextLink reference="97"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="98"></TextLink>. In a prospective, randomised study, the recurrence rate between abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy was compared in 81 patients. Transvaginal ultrasonography was used for assessment and after a study period of 40 month, the recurrence rates were similar in both groups (27% laparoscopy and 23% laparotomy, respectively). Furthermore, in this study, none of the women with myoma recurrence required additional surgery during the study period <TextLink reference="99"></TextLink>. In another large study, investigating 512 patients who underwent laparoscopic myomectomy, the cumulative recurrence rate at 5 years (at 8 years, respectively) was 52.9% (84.4%, respectively), whereas the cumulative probability of reoperation for recurrent myoma was 6.7% at 5 years (16% at 8 years, respectively) <TextLink reference="100"></TextLink>. Factors influencing myoma recurrence may be age, number of myomas, uterine size and childbirth after myomectomy <TextLink reference="94"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="95"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="100"></TextLink>, although other authors did not find a relationship between these factors and myoma recurrence <TextLink reference="99"></TextLink>. However, further long-term, prospective, randomised studies are needed comparing the recurrence rate after laparoscopic and abdominal myomectomy including skill factors. Moreover, it is important to evaluate the clinical impact of myoma recurrence, measured through the need for subsequent treatment, as well as the influencing factors. Thus, patients should be appropriately counselled about probability and risk factors for myoma recurrence. </Pgraph></TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Conclusion"> <MainHeadline>Conclusion</MainHeadline><Pgraph>Laparoscopic myomectomy has several advantages over abdominal myomectomy and even over myomectomy by minilaparotomy, given that minilaparotomy is suggested as a minimally invasive alternative to laparotomy. These advantages include a lower decline in haemoglobin concentrations, lower postoperative pain, lower analgesic requirements, a shorter hospital stay and a faster postoperative recovery (Table 1 <ImgLink imgNo="1" imgType="table"/> and Table 2 <ImgLink imgNo="2" imgType="table"/>). Moreover, myomectomy by laparoscopy decreases the risk of adhesion formation which could potentially lead to serious complications. Compared with abdominal myomectomy, fertility outcomes in infertile patients seem to be similar after laparoscopy, whereas in symptomatic patients, laparoscopy may lead to higher pregnancy rates. Furthermore, if the procedures are performed by a surgeon who is skilled in laparoscopic surgery, uterine ruptures after laparoscopic myomectomies are rare events. Therefore, laparoscopy should be the standard approach for myomectomy. It is recommended that laparoscopic myomectomy should include patients with not more than 4–7 myomas and a myoma diameter of <8–10 cm <TextLink reference="99"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="101"></TextLink>. </Pgraph><Pgraph>One frequently mentioned concern about laparoscopic myomectomy is the expected higher costs associated with laparoscopic procedures. A review of studies comparing abdominal and laparoscopic hysterectomies demonstrated that although laparoscopy was associated with higher direct costs, the indirect costs were lower and might compensate <TextLink reference="102"></TextLink>. At present, studies comparing the costs of abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy are sparse. In a recent study, abdominal myomectomy was the least expensive approach compared with robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy <TextLink reference="61"></TextLink>. No significant difference in the average costs of abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy was found <TextLink reference="39"></TextLink>. Thus, further studies are needed to compare costs of the procedures, including indirect costs as well as long-term costs if additional treatment is required. </Pgraph><Pgraph>Despite the above-mentioned advantages of laparoscopic myomectomy, abdominal myomectomy is still a frequently performed procedure. In France, 37,787 patients required an intervention for uterine myomas in 2005. The study data were obtained through analysis of a national hospital activity database. Treatment of myomas included 22,540 (59.7%) hysterectomies, 6,291 hysteroscopic resections and 571 UAEs. A total of 8,385 myomectomies were conducted including 2,277 laparoscopic and 6,108 abdominal myomectomies <TextLink reference="103"></TextLink>. In Germany, hospital admissions due to interventions for uterine myomas were identified through DRG (diagnosis-related group) codes. In 2005, 64,299 patients were admitted for uterine myomas. 54,577 (84.9%) patients were treated with hysterectomy and in 1,527 patients the myoma were removed through hysteroscopic resection. A total of 8,195 myomectomies were conducted including 315 vaginal myomectomies, 4,692 laparoscopic myomectomies and 3,188 abdominal myomectomies (including 504 laparoconversions). In Germany, more laparoscopic than abdominal myomectomies were performed, although the number of conducted laparotomies was still high <TextLink reference="103"></TextLink>. Since acquiring laparoscopic skills is more challenging than acquiring skills needed for conduction of open surgery, not all surgeons are able to perform advanced laparos<TextGroup><PlainText>copi</PlainText></TextGroup>c procedures like myomectomy <TextLink reference="104"></TextLink>. A UK survey, published in 2006, revealed that only 11% of the respondents perform laparoscopic myomectomy (response rate 59%) <TextLink reference="105"></TextLink>. In a recent Canadian survey, 24.5% of the respondents perform laparoscopic myomectomy and 3.1% stated that more than 50% of their myomectomies are conducted laparoscopically. These rates might be overestimated as the response rate was only 41.4% and it is likely that the questionnaires were answered rather by gynaecologist who were interested in the topic or perform laparoscopic myomectomy. According to this survey, the main obstacle to perform laparoscopic myomectomy was the lack of training in the procedure (70.7% of respondents) <TextLink reference="106"></TextLink>. During residency, only a few residents have the opportunity to gain practical experience in advanced laparoscopic procedures like myomectomy <TextLink reference="107"></TextLink>. However, for the implementation of laparoscopy, training of basic laparoscopic skills during residency is also important, as laparoscopies are rather performed by surgeons who received explicit training during residency <TextLink reference="108"></TextLink>. It was shown that simulator training can be an effective tool to enhance basic laparoscopic skills leading to a better performance during following procedures <TextLink reference="109"></TextLink>. After finishing residency, acquirement of advanced laparoscopic skills can be difficult if there is no opportunity for an appropriate teaching and training. Hiring an experienced laparoscopic surgeon who is interested in teaching other surgeons, in combination with surgeons who are interested in learning advanced laparoscopic procedures, has proven to be an effective method to implement advanced laparoscopic procedures into daily practice <TextLink reference="108"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="110"></TextLink>. Although not all surgeons are s<TextGroup><PlainText>im</PlainText></TextGroup>ilarly skilled <TextLink reference="111"></TextLink>, personal efforts should be made by every surgeon who performs laparoscopy to continuously enhance personal laparoscopic skills, and thereby enhancing the safety of patients. As Walid recently mentioned: “Gynecologists need to improve their laparoscopic skills, as minimally invasive surgery is becoming the <Mark2>sine qua non</Mark2> of a modern surgeon” <TextLink reference="112"></TextLink>. In the future, it is likely that there will be a steadily increasing demand for minimally invasive procedures by patients <TextLink reference="106"></TextLink>. Thus, if the patient is a candidate for laparoscopic myomectomy, the procedure should be offered to the patient, either performed personally or through referral to an experienced colleague, for providing the best care. </Pgraph><Pgraph>At present, research findings suggest that minimally invasive surgery is a useful and feasible approach for myomectomy as the most common plastic and reconstructive uterus operation. Nevertheless, further prospective, randomised studies are needed to compare long-term outcomes between different invasive and noninvasive treatment options in uterine myomas including skill evaluation.</Pgraph></TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Notes"> <MainHeadline>Notes</MainHeadline><SubHeadline>Competing interests</SubHeadline><Pgraph>The authors declare that they have no competing interests.</Pgraph></TextBlock> <References linked="yes"> <Reference refNo="1"> <RefAuthor>Pistofides G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Postoperative adhesion after laparoscopic uterine reconstructive surgery</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>State-of-the-art prevention of adhesions in gynecology</RefBookTitle> <RefPage>62-77</RefPage> <RefTotal>Pistofides G. Postoperative adhesion after laparoscopic uterine reconstructive surgery. In: De Wilde RL, Schmidt EH, eds. State-of-the-art prevention of adhesions in gynecology. Bremen: UNI-MED; 2010. p. 62-77.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="2"> <RefAuthor>Brucker SY</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Rall K</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Campo R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Oppelt P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Isaacson K</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Treatment of congenital malformations</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Semin Reprod Med</RefJournal> <RefPage>101-12</RefPage> <RefTotal>Brucker SY, Rall K, Campo R, Oppelt P, Isaacson K. Treatment of congenital malformations. Semin Reprod Med. 2011;29(2):101-12. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1272472</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1272472</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="3"> <RefAuthor>Somigliana E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Vercellini P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Benaglia L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Abbiati A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Barbara G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fedele L</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The role of myomectomy in fertility enhancement</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>379-85</RefPage> <RefTotal>Somigliana E, Vercellini P, Benaglia L, Abbiati A, Barbara G, Fedele L. The role of myomectomy in fertility enhancement. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20(4):379-85. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283073ac9</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283073ac9</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="4"> <RefAuthor>Letterie G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Management of congenital uterine abnormalities</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Reprod Biomed Online</RefJournal> <RefPage>40-52</RefPage> <RefTotal>Letterie G. Management of congenital uterine abnormalities. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(1):40-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.02.008</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.02.008</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="5"> <RefAuthor>Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V.</RefAuthor> <RefTitle></RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Weibliche genitale Fehlbildungen</RefBookTitle> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V. Weibliche genitale Fehlbildungen. Berlin: DGGG; 2010 [cited 2011 Dec 19]. Available from: http://www.dggg.de/fileadmin/public_docs/Leitlinien/1-1-4-Weibliche-genitale-Fehlbildungen-2010.pdf</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://www.dggg.de/fileadmin/public_docs/Leitlinien/1-1-4-Weibliche-genitale-Fehlbildungen-2010.pdf</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="6"> <RefAuthor>Agdi M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tulandi T</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Minimally invasive approach for myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>Semin Reprod Med</RefJournal> <RefPage>228-34</RefPage> <RefTotal>Agdi M, Tulandi T. Minimally invasive approach for myomectomy. Semin Reprod Med. 2010;28(3):228-34. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1251479</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1251479</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="7"> <RefAuthor>Baird DD</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Dunson DB</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Hill MC</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Cousins D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Schectman JM</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence</RefTitle> <RefYear>2003</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>100-7</RefPage> <RefTotal>Baird DD, Dunson DB, Hill MC, Cousins D, Schectman JM. High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(1):100-7. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.99</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.99</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="8"> <RefAuthor>Stewart EA</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Uterine fibroids</RefTitle> <RefYear>2001</RefYear> <RefJournal>Lancet</RefJournal> <RefPage>293-98</RefPage> <RefTotal>Stewart EA. Uterine fibroids. Lancet. 2001;357(9252):293-98. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03622-9</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03622-9</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="9"> <RefAuthor>Mauskopf J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Flynn M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Thieda P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Spalding J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Duchane J</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The economic impact of uterine fibroids in the united states: a summary of published estimates</RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Womens Health</RefJournal> <RefPage>692-703</RefPage> <RefTotal>Mauskopf J, Flynn M, Thieda P, Spalding J, Duchane J. The economic impact of uterine fibroids in the united states: a summary of published estimates. J Womens Health. 2005;14(8):692-703. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2005.14.692</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2005.14.692</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="10"> <RefAuthor>Whiteman MK</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Hillis SD</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Jamieson DJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Morrow B</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Podgornik MN</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Brett KM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Marchbanks PA</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000-2004</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>34</RefPage> <RefTotal>Whiteman MK, Hillis SD, Jamieson DJ, Morrow B, Podgornik MN, Brett KM, Marchbanks PA. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000-2004. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(1):34.e1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.05.039</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.05.039</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="11"> <RefAuthor>Stang A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Merrill R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kuss O</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Hysterectomy in Germany</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Dtsch Arztebl Int</RefJournal> <RefPage>508-14</RefPage> <RefTotal>Stang A, Merrill R, Kuss O. Hysterectomy in Germany. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108(30):508-14. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0508</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2011.0508</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="12"> <RefAuthor>Parker WH</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Uterine myomas: management</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>Fertil Steril</RefJournal> <RefPage>255-71</RefPage> <RefTotal>Parker WH. Uterine myomas: management. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(2):255-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.044</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.044</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="13"> <RefAuthor>Glasser MH</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Minilaparotomy myomectomy: a minimally invasive alternative for the large fibroid uterus</RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>275-83</RefPage> <RefTotal>Glasser MH. Minilaparotomy myomectomy: a minimally invasive alternative for the large fibroid uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(3):275-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.03.009</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2005.03.009</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="14"> <RefAuthor>Ciavattini A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tsiroglou D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Litta P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Frizzo H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tranquilli AL</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Ultra-minilaparotomy myomectomy: a minimally invasive surgical approach for the treatment of large uterine myomas</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>Gynecol Obstet Invest</RefJournal> <RefPage>127-33</RefPage> <RefTotal>Ciavattini A, Tsiroglou D, Litta P, Frizzo H, Tranquilli AL. Ultra-minilaparotomy myomectomy: a minimally invasive surgical approach for the treatment of large uterine myomas. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2009;68(2):127-33. DOI: 10.1159/000227764</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000227764</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="15"> <RefAuthor>Faivre E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Surroca MM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Deffieux X</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Pages F</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Gervaise A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fernandez H</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Vaginal myomectomy: literature review</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>154-60</RefPage> <RefTotal>Faivre E, Surroca MM, Deffieux X, Pages F, Gervaise A, Fernandez H. Vaginal myomectomy: literature review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(2):154-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2009.12.007</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2009.12.007</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="16"> <RefAuthor>Damiani A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Melgrati L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Marziali M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Sesti F</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Gasless laparoscopic myomectomy. Indications, surgical technique and advantages of a new procedure for removing uterine leiomyomas</RefTitle> <RefYear>2003</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Reprod Med</RefJournal> <RefPage>792-8</RefPage> <RefTotal>Damiani A, Melgrati L, Marziali M, Sesti F. Gasless laparoscopic myomectomy. Indications, surgical technique and advantages of a new procedure for removing uterine leiomyomas. J Reprod Med. 2003;48(10):792-8.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="17"> <RefAuthor>Lee JH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Choi JS</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Jeon SW</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Son CE</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lee SJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lee Y</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Single-port laparoscopic myomectomy using transumbilical GelPort access</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol</RefJournal> <RefPage>81-4</RefPage> <RefTotal>Lee JH, Choi JS, Jeon SW, Son CE, Lee SJ, Lee Y. Single-port laparoscopic myomectomy using transumbilical GelPort access. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;153(1):81-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.07.020</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.07.020</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="18"> <RefAuthor>Magrina JF</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Robotic surgery in gynecology</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>Eur J Gynaecol Oncol</RefJournal> <RefPage>77-82</RefPage> <RefTotal>Magrina JF. Robotic surgery in gynecology. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007;28(2):77-82.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="19"> <RefAuthor>Freed MM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Spies JB</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Uterine artery embolization for fibroids: a review of current outcomes</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>Semin Reprod Med</RefJournal> <RefPage>235-41</RefPage> <RefTotal>Freed MM, Spies JB. Uterine artery embolization for fibroids: a review of current outcomes. Semin Reprod Med. 2010;28(3):235-41. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1251480</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1251480</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="20"> <RefAuthor>Helal A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mashaly AE</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Amer T</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Uterine Artery Occlusion for Treatment of Symptomatic Uterine Myomas</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>JSLS</RefJournal> <RefPage>386-90</RefPage> <RefTotal>Helal A, Mashaly AE, Amer T. Uterine Artery Occlusion for Treatment of Symptomatic Uterine Myomas. JSLS. 2010;14(3):386-90. DOI: 10.4293/108680810X12924466007403</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/108680810X12924466007403</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="21"> <RefAuthor>Donnez J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Squifflet J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Polet R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Nisolle M</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Laparoscopic myolysis</RefTitle> <RefYear>2000</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod Update</RefJournal> <RefPage>609-13</RefPage> <RefTotal>Donnez J, Squifflet J, Polet R, Nisolle M. Laparoscopic myolysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2000;6(6):609-13. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/6.6.609</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/6.6.609</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="22"> <RefAuthor>Fennessy FM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tempany CM</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>A review of magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery of uterine fibroids</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>Top Magn Reson Imaging</RefJournal> <RefPage>173-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Fennessy FM, Tempany CM. A review of magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery of uterine fibroids. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;17(3):173-9. DOI: 10.1097/RMR.0b013e3180337e1f</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RMR.0b013e3180337e1f</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="23"> <RefAuthor>Sankaran S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Manyonda I</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Medical management of fibroids</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>655-76</RefPage> <RefTotal>Sankaran S, Manyonda I. Medical management of fibroids. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;22(4):655-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2008.03.001</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2008.03.001</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="24"> <RefAuthor>Schmidt EH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>De Wilde RL</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Operationen bei Myomen</RefTitle> <RefYear>1998</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Standardverfahren der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie in der Frauenheilkunde</RefBookTitle> <RefPage>125-36</RefPage> <RefTotal>Schmidt EH, De Wilde RL. Operationen bei Myomen. In: Schmidt EH, De Wilde R, eds. Standardverfahren der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie in der Frauenheilkunde. Stuttgart: Thieme; 1998. p. 125-36.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="25"> <RefAuthor>Tchartchian G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Dietzel J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Hackethal A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>De Wilde RL</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Bojahr B</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Die ambulante Myomenukleation</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>Chir prax</RefJournal> <RefPage>97-107</RefPage> <RefTotal>Tchartchian G, Dietzel J, Hackethal A, De Wilde RL, Bojahr B. Die ambulante Myomenukleation. Chir prax. 2009;71:97-107.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="26"> <RefAuthor>Shimanuki H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Takeuchi H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kitade M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kikuchi I</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kumakiri J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kinoshita K</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The effect of vasopressin on local and general circulation during laparoscopic surgery</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>190-4</RefPage> <RefTotal>Shimanuki H, Takeuchi H, Kitade M, Kikuchi I, Kumakiri J, Kinoshita K. The effect of vasopressin on local and general circulation during laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(3):190-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2006.01.015</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2006.01.015</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="27"> <RefAuthor>Mattei A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Cioni R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Bargelli G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Scarselli G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Techniques of laparoscopic myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Reprod Biomed Online</RefJournal> <RefPage>34-39</RefPage> <RefTotal>Mattei A, Cioni R, Bargelli G, Scarselli G. Techniques of laparoscopic myomectomy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(1):34-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.09.011</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.09.011</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="28"> <RefAuthor>Hurst BS</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Matthews ML</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Marshburn P</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Laparoscopic myomectomy for symptomatic uterine myomas</RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefJournal>Fertil Steril</RefJournal> <RefPage>1-23</RefPage> <RefTotal>Hurst BS, Matthews ML, Marshburn P. Laparoscopic myomectomy for symptomatic uterine myomas. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(1):1-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.09.011</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.09.011</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="29"> <RefAuthor>Braithwaite J</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Removal of a submucous fibroid by section of the uterus (myomectomy)</RefTitle> <RefYear>1900</RefYear> <RefJournal>Br Med J</RefJournal> <RefPage>251</RefPage> <RefTotal>Braithwaite J. Removal of a submucous fibroid by section of the uterus (myomectomy). Br Med J. 1900;1(2040):251. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.1.2040.251</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.2040.251</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="30"> <RefAuthor>Chamberlain G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The master of myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2003</RefYear> <RefJournal>J R Soc Med</RefJournal> <RefPage>302-4</RefPage> <RefTotal>Chamberlain G. The master of myomectomy. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(6):302-4. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.96.6.302</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.96.6.302</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="31"> <RefAuthor>Bullard RT</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>When to operate upon uterine fibromyomata: myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1905</RefYear> <RefJournal>Cal State J Med</RefJournal> <RefPage>361-3</RefPage> <RefTotal>Bullard RT. When to operate upon uterine fibromyomata: myomectomy. Cal State J Med. 1905;3(11):361-3.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="32"> <RefAuthor>Bonney V</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Myomectomy or hysterectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1918</RefYear> <RefJournal>Br Med J</RefJournal> <RefPage>278-80</RefPage> <RefTotal>Bonney V. Myomectomy or hysterectomy. Br Med J. 1918;1(2984):278-80. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.1.2984.278</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.2984.278</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="33"> <RefAuthor>Ross JW</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Surgery in the uterine fibroid, a plea for myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1947</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>266-70</RefPage> <RefTotal>Ross JW. Surgery in the uterine fibroid, a plea for myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1947;53(2):266-70.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="34"> <RefAuthor>Guarnaccia MM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Rein M</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Traditional surgical approaches to uterine fibroids: abdominal myomectomy and hysterectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2001</RefYear> <RefJournal>Clin Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>385-400</RefPage> <RefTotal>Guarnaccia MM, Rein M. Traditional surgical approaches to uterine fibroids: abdominal myomectomy and hysterectomy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2001;44(2):385-400. DOI: 10.1097/00003081-200106000-00024</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003081-200106000-00024</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="35"> <RefAuthor>Semm K</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>New methods of pelviscopy (gynecologic laparoscopy) for myomectomy, ovariectomy, tubectomy and adnectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1979</RefYear> <RefJournal>Endoscopy</RefJournal> <RefPage>85-93</RefPage> <RefTotal>Semm K. New methods of pelviscopy (gynecologic laparoscopy) for myomectomy, ovariectomy, tubectomy and adnectomy [Neue Methoden der Pelviskopie (gynäkologische Laparoskopie) zur Myom-, Ovar-, Tub- und Adnektomie]. Endoscopy. 1979;11(2):85-93. DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1098329</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1098329</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="36"> <RefAuthor>Dubuisson J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fauconnier A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Babaki-Fard K</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Chapron C</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Laparoscopic myomectomy: a current view</RefTitle> <RefYear>2000</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod Update</RefJournal> <RefPage>588-94</RefPage> <RefTotal>Dubuisson J, Fauconnier A, Babaki-Fard K, Chapron C. Laparoscopic myomectomy: a current view. Hum Reprod Update. 2000;6(6):588-94. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/6.6.588</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/6.6.588</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="37"> <RefAuthor>Koh C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Janik G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Laparoscopic myomectomy: the current status</RefTitle> <RefYear>2003</RefYear> <RefJournal>Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>295-301</RefPage> <RefTotal>Koh C, Janik G. Laparoscopic myomectomy: the current status. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2003;15(4):295-301. DOI: 10.1097/01.gco.0000084243.09900.5a</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.gco.0000084243.09900.5a</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="38"> <RefAuthor>Takeuchi H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kuwatsuru R</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The indications, surgical techniques, and limitations of laparoscopic myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2003</RefYear> <RefJournal>JSLS</RefJournal> <RefPage>89-95</RefPage> <RefTotal>Takeuchi H, Kuwatsuru R. The indications, surgical techniques, and limitations of laparoscopic myomectomy. JSLS. 2003;7(2):89-95.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="39"> <RefAuthor>Stringer N</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Walker JC</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Meyer P</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Comparison of 49 laparoscopic myomectomies with 49 open myomectomies</RefTitle> <RefYear>1997</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc</RefJournal> <RefPage>457-64</RefPage> <RefTotal>Stringer N, Walker JC, Meyer P. Comparison of 49 laparoscopic myomectomies with 49 open myomectomies. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1997;4(4):457-64. DOI: 10.1016/S1074-3804(05)80039-8</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1074-3804(05)80039-8</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="40"> <RefAuthor>Marret H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Chevillot M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Giraudeau B</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor> The Study Group of the French Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (Ouest Division)</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>A retrospective multicentre study comparing myomectomy by laparoscopy and laparotomy in current surgical practice: What are the best patient selection criteria?</RefTitle> <RefYear>2004</RefYear> <RefJournal>Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol</RefJournal> <RefPage>82-86</RefPage> <RefTotal>Marret H, Chevillot M, Giraudeau B; The Study Group of the French Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (Ouest Division). A retrospective multicentre study comparing myomectomy by laparoscopy and laparotomy in current surgical practice: What are the best patient selection criteria? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;117(1):82-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.04.015</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.04.015</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="41"> <RefAuthor>Mais V</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ajossa S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Guerriero S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mascia M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Solla E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Melis G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Laparoscopic versus abdominal myomectomy: a prospective, randomized trial to evaluate benefits in early outcome</RefTitle> <RefYear>1996</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>654-8</RefPage> <RefTotal>Mais V, Ajossa S, Guerriero S, Mascia M, Solla E, Melis G. Laparoscopic versus abdominal myomectomy: a prospective, randomized trial to evaluate benefits in early outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(2):654-8. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70445-3</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70445-3</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="42"> <RefAuthor>Seracchioli R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Rossi S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Govoni F</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Rossi E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Venturoli S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Bulletti C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Flamigni C</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Fertility and obstetric outcome after laparoscopic myomectomy of large myomata: a randomized comparison with abdominal myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2000</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod</RefJournal> <RefPage>2663-8</RefPage> <RefTotal>Seracchioli R, Rossi S, Govoni F, Rossi E, Venturoli S, Bulletti C, Flamigni C. Fertility and obstetric outcome after laparoscopic myomectomy of large myomata: a randomized comparison with abdominal myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(12):2663-8.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="43"> <RefAuthor>Holzer A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Jirecek ST</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Illievich UM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Huber J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Wenzl R</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Laparoscopic versus open myomectomy: a double-blind study to evaluate postoperative pain</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>Anesth Analg</RefJournal> <RefPage>1480-4</RefPage> <RefTotal>Holzer A, Jirecek ST, Illievich UM, Huber J, Wenzl R. Laparoscopic versus open myomectomy: a double-blind study to evaluate postoperative pain. Anesth Analg. 2006;102(5):1480-4. DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000204321.85599.0d</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000204321.85599.0d</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="44"> <RefAuthor>Cicinelli E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tinelli R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Colafiglio G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Saliani N</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Laparoscopy vs minilaparotomy in women with symptomatic uterine myomas; a prospective randomized study</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>422-6</RefPage> <RefTotal>Cicinelli E, Tinelli R, Colafiglio G, Saliani N. Laparoscopy vs minilaparotomy in women with symptomatic uterine myomas; a prospective randomized study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16(4):422-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.011</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.011</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="45"> <RefAuthor>Benedetti-Panici P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Maneschi F</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Cutillo G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Scambia G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Congiu M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mancuso S</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Surgery by minilaparotomy in benign gynecologic disease</RefTitle> <RefYear>1996</RefYear> <RefJournal>Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>456-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Benedetti-Panici P, Maneschi F, Cutillo G, Scambia G, Congiu M, Mancuso S. Surgery by minilaparotomy in benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87(3):456-9.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="46"> <RefAuthor>Thomas RL</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Winkler N</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Carr BR</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Doody KM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Doody KJ</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Abdominal myomectomy – a safe procedure in an ambulatory setting</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>Fertil Steril</RefJournal> <RefPage>2277-80</RefPage> <RefTotal>Thomas RL, Winkler N, Carr BR, Doody KM, Doody KJ. Abdominal myomectomy – a safe procedure in an ambulatory setting. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2277-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.02.019</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.02.019</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="47"> <RefAuthor>Malzoni M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tinelli R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Cosentino F</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Iuzzolino D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Surico D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Reich H</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Laparoscopy versus minilaparotomy in women with symptomatic uterine myomas: short-term and fertility results</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>Fertil Steril</RefJournal> <RefPage>2368-73</RefPage> <RefTotal>Malzoni M, Tinelli R, Cosentino F, Iuzzolino D, Surico D, Reich H. Laparoscopy versus minilaparotomy in women with symptomatic uterine myomas: short-term and fertility results. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(7):2368-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.127</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.127</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="48"> <RefAuthor>Fanfani F</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fagotti A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Bifulco G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ercoli A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Malzoni M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Scambia G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>A prospective study of laparoscopy versus minilaparotomy in the treatment of uterine myomas</RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>470-4</RefPage> <RefTotal>Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Bifulco G, Ercoli A, Malzoni M, Scambia G. A prospective study of laparoscopy versus minilaparotomy in the treatment of uterine myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(6):470-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.07.002</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2005.07.002</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="49"> <RefAuthor>Benassi L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Marconi L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Benassi G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Accorsi F</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Angeloni M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Besagni F</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Minilaparotomy vs laparotomy for uterine myomectomies: a randomized controlled trial</RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefJournal>Minerva Ginecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>159-63</RefPage> <RefTotal>Benassi L, Marconi L, Benassi G, Accorsi F, Angeloni M, Besagni F. Minilaparotomy vs laparotomy for uterine myomectomies: a randomized controlled trial. Minerva Ginecol. 2005;57(2):159-63.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="50"> <RefAuthor>Cagnacci A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Pirillo D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Malmusi S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Arangino S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Alessandrini C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Volpe A</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Early outcome of myomectomy by laparotomy, minilaparotomy and laparoscopically assisted minilaparotomy. A randomized prospective study</RefTitle> <RefYear>2003</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod</RefJournal> <RefPage>2590-4</RefPage> <RefTotal>Cagnacci A, Pirillo D, Malmusi S, Arangino S, Alessandrini C, Volpe A. Early outcome of myomectomy by laparotomy, minilaparotomy and laparoscopically assisted minilaparotomy. A randomized prospective study. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(12):2590-4. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deg478</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deg478</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="51"> <RefAuthor>Alessandri F</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lijoi D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mistrangelo E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ferrero S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ragni N</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Randomized study of laparoscopic versus minilaparotomic myomectomy for uterine myomas</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>92-7</RefPage> <RefTotal>Alessandri F, Lijoi D, Mistrangelo E, Ferrero S, Ragni N. Randomized study of laparoscopic versus minilaparotomic myomectomy for uterine myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(2):92-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.11.008</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2005.11.008</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="52"> <RefAuthor>Palomba S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Zupi E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Russo T</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Falbo A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Marconi D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tolino A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor></RefAuthor> <RefTitle>A multicenter randomized, controlled study comparing laparoscopic versus minilaparotomic myomectomy: short-term outcomes</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>Fertil Steril</RefJournal> <RefPage>942-51</RefPage> <RefTotal>Palomba S, Zupi E, Russo T, Falbo A, Marconi D, Tolino A, et al. A multicenter randomized, controlled study comparing laparoscopic versus minilaparotomic myomectomy: short-term outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(4):942-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.048</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.048</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="53"> <RefAuthor>Quaas AM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Einarsson JI</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Srouji S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Gargiulo A</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Robotic myomectomy: a review of indications and techniques</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>Rev Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>185-91</RefPage> <RefTotal>Quaas AM, Einarsson JI, Srouji S, Gargiulo A. Robotic myomectomy: a review of indications and techniques. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2010;3(4):185-91.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="54"> <RefAuthor>Advincula AP</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Xu X</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Goudeau S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ransom SB</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>698-705</RefPage> <RefTotal>Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau S, Ransom SB. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14(6):698-705. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2007.06.008</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2007.06.008</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="55"> <RefAuthor>Ascher-Walsh CJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Capes TL</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>306-10</RefPage> <RefTotal>Ascher-Walsh CJ, Capes TL. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(3):306-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.01.011</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.01.011</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="56"> <RefAuthor>Barakat EE</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Bedaiwy MA</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Zimberg S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Nutter B</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Nosseir M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Falcone T</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Robotic-Assisted, Laparoscopic, and Abdominal Myomectomy: A Comparison of Surgical Outcomes</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>256-66</RefPage> <RefTotal>Barakat EE, Bedaiwy MA, Zimberg S, Nutter B, Nosseir M, Falcone T. Robotic-Assisted, Laparoscopic, and Abdominal Myomectomy: A Comparison of Surgical Outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Part 1):256-66. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318207854f</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318207854f</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="57"> <RefAuthor>Bedient CE</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Magrina JF</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Noble BN</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kho RM</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>566</RefPage> <RefTotal>Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, Kho RM. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(6):566.e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.05.049</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.05.049</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="58"> <RefAuthor>Nezhat C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lavie O</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Hsu S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Watson J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Barnett O</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lemyre M</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy – a retrospective matched control study</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>Fertil Steril</RefJournal> <RefPage>556-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Nezhat C, Lavie O, Hsu S, Watson J, Barnett O, Lemyre M. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy – a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(2):556-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.092</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.092</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="59"> <RefAuthor>Payne TN</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Pitter MC</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Robotic-assisted surgery for the community gynecologist: Can it be adopted?</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Clin Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>391-411</RefPage> <RefTotal>Payne TN, Pitter MC. Robotic-assisted surgery for the community gynecologist: Can it be adopted? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54(3):391-411. DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e31822b4998</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e31822b4998</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="60"> <RefAuthor>Lönnerfors C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Persson J</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy; a feasible technique for removal of unfavorably localized myomas</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand</RefJournal> <RefPage>994-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Lönnerfors C, Persson J. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy; a feasible technique for removal of unfavorably localized myomas. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(9):994-9. DOI: 10.1080/00016340903118026</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016340903118026</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="61"> <RefAuthor>Behera M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Likes CE3</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Judd JP</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Barnett JC</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Havrilesky LJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Wu JM</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Cost analysis of abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted myomectomies</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Behera M, Likes CE3, Judd JP, Barnett JC, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM. Cost analysis of abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted myomectomies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.09.007</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.09.007</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="62"> <RefAuthor>Menzies D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ellis H</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Intestinal obstruction from adhesions – how big is the problem?</RefTitle> <RefYear>1990</RefYear> <RefJournal>Ann R Coll Surg Engl</RefJournal> <RefPage>60-3</RefPage> <RefTotal>Menzies D, Ellis H. Intestinal obstruction from adhesions – how big is the problem? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1990;72(1):60-3.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="63"> <RefAuthor>Barmparas G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Branco BC</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Schnüriger B</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lam L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Inaba K</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Demetriades D</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The incidence and risk factors of post-laparotomy adhesive small bowel obstruction</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Gastrointest Surg</RefJournal> <RefPage>1619-28</RefPage> <RefTotal>Barmparas G, Branco BC, Schnüriger B, Lam L, Inaba K, Demetriades D. The incidence and risk factors of post-laparotomy adhesive small bowel obstruction. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14(10):1619-28. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-010-1189-8</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11605-010-1189-8</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="64"> <RefAuthor>Vercellini P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Somigliana E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Viganò P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Abbiati A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Barbara G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fedele L</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Chronic pelvic pain in women: etiology, pathogenesis and diagnostic approach</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>Gynecol Endocrinol</RefJournal> <RefPage>149-58</RefPage> <RefTotal>Vercellini P, Somigliana E, Viganò P, Abbiati A, Barbara G, Fedele L. Chronic pelvic pain in women: etiology, pathogenesis and diagnostic approach. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2009;25(3):149-58. DOI: 10.1080/09513590802549858</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09513590802549858</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="65"> <RefAuthor>Diamond MP</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Freeman ML</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Clinical implications of postsurgical adhesions</RefTitle> <RefYear>2001</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod Update</RefJournal> <RefPage>567-76</RefPage> <RefTotal>Diamond MP, Freeman ML. Clinical implications of postsurgical adhesions. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7(6):567-76. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/7.6.567</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/7.6.567</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="66"> <RefAuthor>van der Krabben AA</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Dijkstra FR</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Nieuwenhuijzen M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Reijnen MM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Schaapveld M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>van Goor H</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Morbidity and mortality of inadvertent enterotomy during adhesiotomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2000</RefYear> <RefJournal>Br J Surg</RefJournal> <RefPage>467-71</RefPage> <RefTotal>van der Krabben AA, Dijkstra FR, Nieuwenhuijzen M, Reijnen MM, Schaapveld M, van Goor H. Morbidity and mortality of inadvertent enterotomy during adhesiotomy. Br J Surg. 2000;87:467-71. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01394.x</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01394.x</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="67"> <RefAuthor>O'Connor DB</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Winter DC</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The role of laparoscopy in the management of acute small-bowel obstruction: a review of over 2,000 cases</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Surg Endosc</RefJournal> <RefPage>12-7</RefPage> <RefTotal>O'Connor DB, Winter DC. The role of laparoscopy in the management of acute small-bowel obstruction: a review of over 2,000 cases. Surg Endosc. 2011;26(1):12-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-1885-9</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1885-9</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="68"> <RefAuthor>Trew G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Postoperative adhesions and their prevention</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>Rev Gynaecol Perinatal Pract</RefJournal> <RefPage>47-56</RefPage> <RefTotal>Trew G. Postoperative adhesions and their prevention. Rev Gynaecol Perinatal Pract. 2006;6(1-2):47-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.rigapp.2006.02.001</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rigapp.2006.02.001</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="69"> <RefAuthor>De Wilde RL</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Trew G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Postoperative abdominal adhesions and their prevention in gynaecological surgery. Expert consensus position</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>Gynecol Surg</RefJournal> <RefPage>161-8</RefPage> <RefTotal>De Wilde RL, Trew G. Postoperative abdominal adhesions and their prevention in gynaecological surgery. Expert consensus position. Gynecol Surg. 2007;4(3):161-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10397-007-0338-x</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-007-0338-x</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="70"> <RefAuthor>Lower AM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Hawthorn RJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Clark D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Boyed JH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Finlayson AR</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Knight AD</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Crowe AM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor> Surgical and Clinical Research (SCAR) Group</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Adhesion-related readmissions following gynaecological laparoscopy or laparotomy in Scotland: an epidemiological study of 24 046 patients</RefTitle> <RefYear>2004</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod</RefJournal> <RefPage>1877-85</RefPage> <RefTotal>Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, Clark D, Boyed JH, Finlayson AR, Knight AD, Crowe AM; Surgical and Clinical Research (SCAR) Group. Adhesion-related readmissions following gynaecological laparoscopy or laparotomy in Scotland: an epidemiological study of 24 046 patients. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(8):1877-85. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh321</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh321</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="71"> <RefAuthor>Ott DE</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Laparoscopy and adhesion formation, adhesions and laparoscopy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Semin Reprod Med</RefJournal> <RefPage>322-30</RefPage> <RefTotal>Ott DE. Laparoscopy and adhesion formation, adhesions and laparoscopy. Semin Reprod Med. 2008;26(4):322-30. DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1082390</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1082390</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="72"> <RefAuthor>Tinelli A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Malvasi A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Guido M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tsin DA</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Hudelist G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Hurst B</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Stark M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mettler L</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Adhesion formation after intracapsular myomectomy with or without adhesion barrier</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Fertil Steril</RefJournal> <RefPage>1780-5</RefPage> <RefTotal>Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Guido M, Tsin DA, Hudelist G, Hurst B, Stark M, Mettler L. Adhesion formation after intracapsular myomectomy with or without adhesion barrier. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(5):1780-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.12.049</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.12.049</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="73"> <RefAuthor>Kubinova K</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mara M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Horak P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kuzel D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Dohnalova A</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Reproduction after myomectomy: comparison of patients with and without second-look laparoscopy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol</RefJournal> <RefPage></RefPage> <RefTotal>Kubinova K, Mara M, Horak P, Kuzel D, Dohnalova A. Reproduction after myomectomy: comparison of patients with and without second-look laparoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2011. DOI: 10.3109/13645706.2011.573797</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13645706.2011.573797</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="74"> <RefAuthor>Di Gregorio A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Maccario S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Raspollini M</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The role of laparoscopic myomectomy in women of reproductive age</RefTitle> <RefYear>2002</RefYear> <RefJournal>Reprod Biomed Online</RefJournal> <RefPage>55-8</RefPage> <RefTotal>Di Gregorio A, Maccario S, Raspollini M. The role of laparoscopic myomectomy in women of reproductive age. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;4 Suppl 3:55-8.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="75"> <RefAuthor>Tulandi T</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Murray C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Guralnick M</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Adhesion formation and reproductive outcome after myomectomy and second-look laparoscopy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1993</RefYear> <RefJournal>Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>213-5</RefPage> <RefTotal>Tulandi T, Murray C, Guralnick M. Adhesion formation and reproductive outcome after myomectomy and second-look laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82(2):213-5.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="76"> <RefAuthor>Dubuisson JB</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fauconnier A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Chapron C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kreiker G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Nörgaard C</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Second look after laparoscopic myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1998</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod</RefJournal> <RefPage>2102-6</RefPage> <RefTotal>Dubuisson JB, Fauconnier A, Chapron C, Kreiker G, Nörgaard C. Second look after laparoscopic myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(8):2102-6. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/13.8.2102</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.8.2102</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="77"> <RefAuthor>Takeuchi H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kitade M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kikuchi I</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Shimanuki H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kumakiri J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Takeda S</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Influencing factors of adhesion development and the efficacy of adhesion-preventing agents in patients undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy as evaluated by a second-look laparoscopy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Fertil Steril</RefJournal> <RefPage>1247-53</RefPage> <RefTotal>Takeuchi H, Kitade M, Kikuchi I, Shimanuki H, Kumakiri J, Takeda S. Influencing factors of adhesion development and the efficacy of adhesion-preventing agents in patients undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy as evaluated by a second-look laparoscopy. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(5):1247-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.021</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.021</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="78"> <RefAuthor>Trew G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Pistofidis G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Pados G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lower A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mettler L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Wallwiener D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor></RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Gynaecological endoscopic evaluation of 4% icodextrin solution: a European, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study of the efficacy and safety in the reduction of de novo adhesions after laparoscopic gynaecological surgery</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod</RefJournal> <RefPage>2015-27</RefPage> <RefTotal>Trew G, Pistofidis G, Pados G, Lower A, Mettler L, Wallwiener D, et al. Gynaecological endoscopic evaluation of 4% icodextrin solution: a European, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study of the efficacy and safety in the reduction of de novo adhesions after laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(8):2015-27. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der135</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der135</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="79"> <RefAuthor>Wallwiener CW</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kraemer B</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Wallwiener M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Brochhausen C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Isaacson KB</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Rajab T</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The extent of adhesion induction through electrocoagulation and suturing in an experimental rat study</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>Fertil Steril</RefJournal> <RefPage>1040-4</RefPage> <RefTotal>Wallwiener CW, Kraemer B, Wallwiener M, Brochhausen C, Isaacson KB, Rajab T. The extent of adhesion induction through electrocoagulation and suturing in an experimental rat study. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(4):1040-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.002</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.002</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="80"> <RefAuthor>O'Leary DP</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Role of sutures and suturing in the formation of postoperative adhesions</RefTitle> <RefYear>2000</RefYear> <RefBookTitle>Peritoneal surgery</RefBookTitle> <RefPage>201-14</RefPage> <RefTotal>O'Leary DP. Role of sutures and suturing in the formation of postoperative adhesions. In: diZerega G, ed. Peritoneal surgery. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2000. p. 201-14.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="81"> <RefAuthor>De Wilde RL</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Trew G</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Postoperative abdominal adhesions and their prevention in gynaecological surgery. Expert consensus position. Part 2-steps to reduce adhesions</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>Gynecol Surg</RefJournal> <RefPage>243-53</RefPage> <RefTotal>De Wilde RL, Trew G. Postoperative abdominal adhesions and their prevention in gynaecological surgery. Expert consensus position. Part 2-steps to reduce adhesions. Gynecol Surg. 2007;4(4):243-53. DOI: 10.1007/s10397-007-0333-2</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-007-0333-2</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="82"> <RefAuthor>Metwally M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Watson A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lilford R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Vanderkerchove P</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>Cochrane Database Syst Rev</RefJournal> <RefPage>CD001298</RefPage> <RefTotal>Metwally M, Watson A, Lilford R, Vanderkerchove P. Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD001298. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001298.pub3</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001298.pub3</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="83"> <RefAuthor>Agdi M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tulandi T</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Endoscopic management of uterine fibroids</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>707-16</RefPage> <RefTotal>Agdi M, Tulandi T. Endoscopic management of uterine fibroids. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;22(4):707-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2008.01.011</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2008.01.011</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="84"> <RefAuthor>Klatsky PC</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tran ND</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Caughey AB</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fujimoto VY</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Fibroids and reproductive outcomes: a systematic literature review from conception to delivery</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>357-66</RefPage> <RefTotal>Klatsky PC, Tran ND, Caughey AB, Fujimoto VY. Fibroids and reproductive outcomes: a systematic literature review from conception to delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(4):357-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.12.039</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.12.039</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="85"> <RefAuthor>Pritts EA</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Parker WH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Olive D</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>Fertil Steril</RefJournal> <RefPage>1215-23</RefPage> <RefTotal>Pritts EA, Parker WH, Olive D. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4):1215-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.051</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.051</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="86"> <RefAuthor>Somigliana E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Vercellini P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Daguati R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Pasin R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Giorgi O de</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Crosignani PG</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Fibroids and female reproduction: a critical analysis of the evidence</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod Update</RefJournal> <RefPage>465-76</RefPage> <RefTotal>Somigliana E, Vercellini P, Daguati R, Pasin R, Giorgi O de, Crosignani PG. Fibroids and female reproduction: a critical analysis of the evidence. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13(5):465-76. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmm013</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmm013</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="87"> <RefAuthor>Nezhat C</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The “cons” of laparoscopic myomectomy in women who may reproduce in the future</RefTitle> <RefYear>1996</RefYear> <RefJournal>Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud</RefJournal> <RefPage>280-3</RefPage> <RefTotal>Nezhat C. The “cons” of laparoscopic myomectomy in women who may reproduce in the future. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud. 1996;41(3):280-3.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="88"> <RefAuthor>Levi AA</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Rupture of the pregnant uterus. Relationship to previous myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1961</RefYear> <RefJournal>Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>223-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Levi AA. Rupture of the pregnant uterus. Relationship to previous myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1961;18:223-9.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="89"> <RefAuthor>Garnet J</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Uterine rupture during pregnancy. An analysis of 133 patients</RefTitle> <RefYear>1964</RefYear> <RefJournal>Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>898-905</RefPage> <RefTotal>Garnet J. Uterine rupture during pregnancy. An analysis of 133 patients. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;23:898-905.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="90"> <RefAuthor>Golan D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Aharoni A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Gonen R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Boss Y</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Sharf M</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Early spontaneous rupture of the post myomectomy gravid uterus</RefTitle> <RefYear>1990</RefYear> <RefJournal>Int J Gynecol Obstet</RefJournal> <RefPage>167-70</RefPage> <RefTotal>Golan D, Aharoni A, Gonen R, Boss Y, Sharf M. Early spontaneous rupture of the post myomectomy gravid uterus. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1990;31(2):167-70. DOI: 10.1016/0020-7292(90)90716-X</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0020-7292(90)90716-X</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="91"> <RefAuthor>Dubuisson JB</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fauconnier A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Deffarges J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Norgaard C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kreiker G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Chapron C</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Pregnancy Outcome And Deliveries Following Laparoscopic Myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2000</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod</RefJournal> <RefPage>869-73</RefPage> <RefTotal>Dubuisson JB, Fauconnier A, Deffarges J, Norgaard C, Kreiker G, Chapron C. Pregnancy Outcome And Deliveries Following Laparoscopic Myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(4):869-73. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.4.869</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/15.4.869</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="92"> <RefAuthor>Parker WH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Einarsson J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Istre O</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Dubuisson JB</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Risk factors for uterine rupture after laparoscopic myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>551-4</RefPage> <RefTotal>Parker WH, Einarsson J, Istre O, Dubuisson JB. Risk factors for uterine rupture after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(5):551-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.04.015</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.04.015</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="93"> <RefAuthor>Kumakiri J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Takeuchi H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Itoh S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kitade M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kikuchi I</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Shimanuki H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kumakiri Y</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kuroda K</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Takeda S</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Prospective Evaluation for the feasibility and safety of vaginal birth after laparoscopic myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>420-4</RefPage> <RefTotal>Kumakiri J, Takeuchi H, Itoh S, Kitade M, Kikuchi I, Shimanuki H, Kumakiri Y, Kuroda K, Takeda S. Prospective Evaluation for the feasibility and safety of vaginal birth after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(4):420-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.04.008</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2008.04.008</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="94"> <RefAuthor>Fauconnier A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Chapron C</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Babaki-Fard K</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Dubuisson JB</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Recurrence of leiomyomata after myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2000</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod Update</RefJournal> <RefPage>595-602</RefPage> <RefTotal>Fauconnier A, Chapron C, Babaki-Fard K, Dubuisson JB. Recurrence of leiomyomata after myomectomy. Hum Reprod Update. 2000;6(6):595-602. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/6.6.595</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/6.6.595</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="95"> <RefAuthor>Hanafi M</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Predictors of leiomyoma recurrence after myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefJournal>Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>877-81</RefPage> <RefTotal>Hanafi M. Predictors of leiomyoma recurrence after myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(4):877-81. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000156298.74317.62</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000156298.74317.62</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="96"> <RefAuthor>Nishiyama S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Saito M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Sato K</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kurishita M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Itasaka T</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Shioda K</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>High recurrence rate of uterine fibroids on transvaginal ultrasound after abdominal Myomectomy in Japanese Women</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>Gynecol Obstet Invest</RefJournal> <RefPage>155-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Nishiyama S, Saito M, Sato K, Kurishita M, Itasaka T, Shioda K. High recurrence rate of uterine fibroids on transvaginal ultrasound after abdominal Myomectomy in Japanese Women. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2006;61(3):155-9. DOI: 10.1159/000090628</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000090628</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="97"> <RefAuthor>Nezhat FR</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Roemisch M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Nezhat C</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1996</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc</RefJournal> <RefPage>35</RefPage> <RefTotal>Nezhat FR, Roemisch M, Nezhat C. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;3(4 Suppl 1):35. DOI: 10.1016/S1074-3804(96)80253-2</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1074-3804(96)80253-2</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="98"> <RefAuthor>Nezhat FR</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Roemisch M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Nezhat CH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Seidman DS</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Nezhat C</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Recurrence rate after laparoscopic myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1998</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc</RefJournal> <RefPage>237-40</RefPage> <RefTotal>Nezhat FR, Roemisch M, Nezhat CH, Seidman DS, Nezhat C. Recurrence rate after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998;5(3):237-40. DOI: 10.1016/S1074-3804(98)80025-X</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1074-3804(98)80025-X</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="99"> <RefAuthor>Rosetti A</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Sizzi O</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Soranna L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Cucinelli F</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mancuso S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lanzone A</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Long-term results of laparoscopic myomectomy: recurrence rate in comparison with abdominal myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2001</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod</RefJournal> <RefPage>770-4</RefPage> <RefTotal>Rosetti A, Sizzi O, Soranna L, Cucinelli F, Mancuso S, Lanzone A. Long-term results of laparoscopic myomectomy: recurrence rate in comparison with abdominal myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(4):770-4. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.4.770</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.4.770</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="100"> <RefAuthor>Yoo EH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lee PI</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Huh CY</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kim DH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lee BS</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lee JK</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kim D</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Predictors of leiomyoma recurrence after laparoscopic myomectomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>690-7</RefPage> <RefTotal>Yoo EH, Lee PI, Huh CY, Kim DH, Lee BS, Lee JK, Kim D. Predictors of leiomyoma recurrence after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14(6):690-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2007.06.003</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2007.06.003</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="101"> <RefAuthor>Donnez J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mathieu PE</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Bassil S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Smets M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Nisolle M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Berliere M</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Laparoscopic myomectomy today. Fibroids: management and treatment: the state of the art</RefTitle> <RefYear>1996</RefYear> <RefJournal>Hum Reprod</RefJournal> <RefPage>1837-40</RefPage> <RefTotal>Donnez J, Mathieu PE, Bassil S, Smets M, Nisolle M, Berliere M. Laparoscopic myomectomy today. Fibroids: management and treatment: the state of the art. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(9):1837-40.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="102"> <RefAuthor>Bijen CB</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Vermeulen KM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mourits MJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>de Bock GH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Abdel-Aleem H</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Costs and effects of abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of controlled trials</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>PLoS One</RefJournal> <RefPage>e7340</RefPage> <RefTotal>Bijen CB, Vermeulen KM, Mourits MJ, de Bock GH, Abdel-Aleem H. Costs and effects of abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of controlled trials. PLoS One. 2009;4(10):e7340. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007340</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007340</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="103"> <RefAuthor>Fernandez H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Farrugia M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Jones SE</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mauskopf JA</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Oppelt P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Subramanian D</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Rate, type, and cost of invasive interventions for uterine myomas in Germany, France, and England</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>40-6</RefPage> <RefTotal>Fernandez H, Farrugia M, Jones SE, Mauskopf JA, Oppelt P, Subramanian D. Rate, type, and cost of invasive interventions for uterine myomas in Germany, France, and England. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16(1):40-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.09.581</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2008.09.581</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="104"> <RefAuthor>Hiemstra E</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kolkman W</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Jansen FW</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Skills training in minimally invasive surgery in Dutch obstetrics and gynecology residency curriculum</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Gynecol Surg</RefJournal> <RefPage>321-5</RefPage> <RefTotal>Hiemstra E, Kolkman W, Jansen FW. Skills training in minimally invasive surgery in Dutch obstetrics and gynecology residency curriculum. Gynecol Surg. 2008;5(4):321-5. DOI: 10.1007/s10397-008-0402-1</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-008-0402-1</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="105"> <RefAuthor>Chapman L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Magos A</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Surgical and radiological management of uterine fibroids in the UK</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>394-401</RefPage> <RefTotal>Chapman L, Magos A. Surgical and radiological management of uterine fibroids in the UK. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;18(4):394-401. DOI: 10.1097/01.gco.0000233933.13684.05</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.gco.0000233933.13684.05</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="106"> <RefAuthor>Liu G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Zolis L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kung R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Melchior M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Singh S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Cook F</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The laparoscopic myomectomy: a survey of canadian gynaecologists</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Obstet Gynaecol Can</RefJournal> <RefPage>139-48</RefPage> <RefTotal>Liu G, Zolis L, Kung R, Melchior M, Singh S, Cook F. The laparoscopic myomectomy: a survey of canadian gynaecologists. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32(2):139-48.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="107"> <RefAuthor>Kolkman W</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Wolterbeek R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Jansen F</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Implementation of advanced laparoscopy into daily gynecologic practice: difficulties and solutions</RefTitle> <RefYear>2006</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>4-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Kolkman W, Wolterbeek R, Jansen F. Implementation of advanced laparoscopy into daily gynecologic practice: difficulties and solutions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(1):4-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.11.002</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2005.11.002</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="108"> <RefAuthor>Kolkman W</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Engels LE</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Smeets MJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Jansen FW</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Teach the teachers: an observational study on mentor traineeship in gynecological laparoscopic surgery</RefTitle> <RefYear>2007</RefYear> <RefJournal>Gynecol Obstet Invest</RefJournal> <RefPage>1-7</RefPage> <RefTotal>Kolkman W, Engels LE, Smeets MJ, Jansen FW. Teach the teachers: an observational study on mentor traineeship in gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2007;64(1):1-7. DOI: 10.1159/000098315</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000098315</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="109"> <RefAuthor>Kolkman W</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Wolterbeek R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Jansen FW</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Gynecological laparoscopy in residency training program</RefTitle> <RefYear>2005</RefYear> <RefJournal>Surg Endosc</RefJournal> <RefPage>1498-502</RefPage> <RefTotal>Kolkman W, Wolterbeek R, Jansen FW. Gynecological laparoscopy in residency training program. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(11):1498-502. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-005-0291-6</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0291-6</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="110"> <RefAuthor>Fowler DL</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Hogle N</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The impact of a full-time director of minimally invasive surgery: Clinical practice, education, and research</RefTitle> <RefYear>2000</RefYear> <RefJournal>Surg Endosc</RefJournal> <RefPage>444-7</RefPage> <RefTotal>Fowler DL, Hogle N. The impact of a full-time director of minimally invasive surgery: Clinical practice, education, and research. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(5):444-7. DOI: 10.1007/s004640000158</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004640000158</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="111"> <RefAuthor>Mayooran Z</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Rombauts L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Brown T</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tsaltas J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fraser K</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Healy D</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Reliability and validity of an objective assessment instrument of laparoscopic skill</RefTitle> <RefYear>2004</RefYear> <RefJournal>Fertil Steril</RefJournal> <RefPage>976-8</RefPage> <RefTotal>Mayooran Z, Rombauts L, Brown T, Tsaltas J, Fraser K, Healy D. Reliability and validity of an objective assessment instrument of laparoscopic skill. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(4):976-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.05.067</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.05.067</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="112"> <RefAuthor>Walid MS</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Heaton R</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>The role of laparoscopic myomectomy in the management of uterine fibroids</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol</RefJournal> <RefPage>273-7</RefPage> <RefTotal>Walid MS, Heaton R. The role of laparoscopic myomectomy in the management of uterine fibroids. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;23(4):273-7. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e328348a245</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e328348a245</RefLink> </Reference> </References> <Media> <Tables> <Table format="png"> <MediaNo>1</MediaNo> <MediaID>1</MediaID> <Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Table 1: Laparoscopic myomectomy vs. abdominal myomectomy by conventional laparotomy</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption> </Table> <Table format="png"> <MediaNo>2</MediaNo> <MediaID>2</MediaID> <Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Table 2: Laparoscopic myomectomy vs. abdominal myomectomy by minilaparotomy</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption> </Table> <NoOfTables>2</NoOfTables> </Tables> <Figures> <Figure format="png" height="613" width="551"> <MediaNo>1</MediaNo> <MediaID>1</MediaID> <Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Figure 1: Location of uterine myomas</Mark1></Pgraph><Pgraph>Submucosal fibroids intrude into or are contained in the uterine cavity; intramural fibroids are contained within the wall of the uterus, and subserosal ones create the characteristic irregular feel of the myomatous uterus. Most myomas are of mixed type, however, as illustrated by A, B, and C (reprinted from [8] with permission from Elsevier).</Pgraph></Caption> </Figure> <Figure format="png" height="338" width="395"> <MediaNo>2</MediaNo> <MediaID>2</MediaID> <Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Figure 2: Fundal myoma</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption> </Figure> <Figure format="png" height="336" width="397"> <MediaNo>3</MediaNo> <MediaID>3</MediaID> <Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Figure 3: The myometrium overlying the myoma is opened and the myoma is visible. A myoma screw was inserted into the myoma.</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption> </Figure> <Figure format="png" height="333" width="392"> <MediaNo>4</MediaNo> <MediaID>4</MediaID> <Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Figure 4: Uterus after myomectomy with hysterotomy suture</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption> </Figure> <NoOfPictures>4</NoOfPictures> </Figures> <InlineFigures> <NoOfPictures>0</NoOfPictures> </InlineFigures> <Attachments> <NoOfAttachments>0</NoOfAttachments> </Attachments> </Media> </OrigData> </GmsArticle>